Note that the appropriate mechanism to provide security to RTP and payloads following this memo may vary. It is dependent on the application, the transport, and the signaling protocol employed. Therefore, a single mechanism is not sufficient, although if suitable, usage of the Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP) [RFC3711] recommended. Other mechanisms that may be used are IPsec [RFC4301] Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC5246] (RTP over TCP);

"and" or "," is missing before Transport Layer Security.

other alternatives may exist.

2009-05-27

09

Alexey Melnikov

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Alexey Melnikov

State Changes to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza

2009-02-26

08

Magnus Westerlund

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund

2009-02-26

08

Ross Callon

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon

2009-02-26

08

Dan Romascanu

[Ballot discuss]> The new draft obsoletes RFC3047 adding the support for the Superwideband (14 Khz) audio support defined in annex C of the ...

[Ballot discuss]> The new draft obsoletes RFC3047 adding the support for the Superwideband (14 Khz) audio support defined in annex C of the new revision of ITU-T G.722.1.

There is no indication about the backwards compatibility of this specification (I think that the word 'draft' must be replaced in the final version of the document) and RFC 3047. Will th epaylod format described here be accepted and correctly processed by RFC 3047 compatibe devices, excepting for Superwideband support? Are there any oth er operational implications of deploying devices that support the new format?

2009-02-26

08

Dan Romascanu

[Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu

2009-02-26

08

Pasi Eronen

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Pasi Eronen

2009-02-26

08

Jon Peterson

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jon Peterson

2009-02-25

08

Chris Newman

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Chris Newman

2009-02-25

08

Lisa Dusseault

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault

2009-02-25

08

Russ Housley

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley

2009-02-25

08

Mark Townsley

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Mark Townsley

2009-02-25

08

Tim Polk

[Ballot discuss]This is primarily a process discuss, but I believe the change proposed below would significantly improve the document. Alexey Melnikov's secdir ...

[Ballot discuss]This is primarily a process discuss, but I believe the change proposed below would significantly improve the document. Alexey Melnikov's secdir review has not received a response. Hesuggested expanding the first paragraph in the security considerations to provide morebackground to a reader unfamiliar with RTP on the range of possible security mechanisms.

He has proposed text (from RFC 5404); I would like to know if the authors feel this suggestionis innapropriate.

2009-02-25

08

Tim Polk

[Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Tim Polk

2009-02-25

08

Jari Arkko

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jari Arkko

2009-02-24

08

Ron Bonica

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica

2009-02-24

08

David Ward

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by David Ward

2009-02-23

08

Lars Eggert

[Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Lars Eggert

2009-02-20

08

Cullen Jennings

Telechat date was changed to 2009-02-26 from by Cullen Jennings

2009-02-20

08

Cullen Jennings

State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Cullen Jennings

2009-02-20

08

Cullen Jennings

Placed on agenda for telechat - 2009-02-26 by Cullen Jennings

2009-02-20

08

Cullen Jennings

[Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Cullen Jennings

2009-02-20

08

Cullen Jennings

Ballot has been issued by Cullen Jennings

2009-02-20

08

Cullen Jennings

Created "Approve" ballot

2009-02-09

08

(System)

State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system

2009-02-02

08

Amanda Baber

IANA Last Call comments:

Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the followingchange in the "Audio Media Types" registry athttp://www.iana ...

State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::External Party by Cullen Jennings

2009-01-24

08

Cullen Jennings

Last Call was requested by Cullen Jennings

2009-01-24

08

(System)

Ballot writeup text was added

2009-01-24

08

(System)

Last call text was added

2009-01-24

08

(System)

Ballot approval text was added

2008-11-14

08

Cullen Jennings

State Changes to AD Evaluation::External Party from AD Evaluation by Cullen Jennings

2008-11-13

08

Cullen Jennings

State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Cullen Jennings

2008-10-27

08

Cindy Morgan

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has theDocument Shepherd personally reviewed this version of thedocument and, in particular, does ...

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has theDocument Shepherd personally reviewed this version of thedocument and, in particular, does he or she believe thisversion is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Tom Taylor is the Document Shepherd. I have read this versionof the draft and believe it is ready for publication.

(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG membersand from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd haveany concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews thathave been performed?

The document has had solid review within the AVT Working Group.Media types review was requested and xxxxxxxx

(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the documentneeds more review from a particular or broader perspective,e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar withAAA, internationalization or XML?

No concerns.

(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns orissues with this document that the Responsible Area Directorand/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps heor she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, orhas concerns whether there really is a need for it. In anyevent, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicatedthat it still wishes to advance the document, detail thoseconcerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this documentbeen filed? If so, please include a reference to thedisclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion onthis issue.

No concerns. No IPR disclosures have been posted.

(1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does itrepresent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, withothers being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand andagree with it?

Consensus appears to be solid.

(1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extremediscontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict inseparate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (Itshould be in a separate email because this questionnaire isentered into the ID Tracker.)

Media type review was requested 22/10/08. Mark Baker, aregular reviewer, declared that the registration looks OK.There has been no other comment.

The IDnits tool has one complaint, about an FQDN notcompliant with RFC 2606. This seems to be a false positive.Not sure if it is the repeated reference to G722.1 or thecontact name in the media type registration that is misleadingthe tool.

(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative andinformative? Are there normative references to documents thatare not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclearstate? If such normative references exist, what is thestrategy for their completion? Are there normative referencesthat are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? Ifso, list these downward references to support the AreaDirector in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

All OK.

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANAconsideration section exists and is consistent with the bodyof the document? If the document specifies protocolextensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANAregistries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? Ifthe document creates a new registry, does it define theproposed initial contents of the registry and an allocationprocedure for future registrations? Does it suggest areasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If thedocument describes an Expert Review process has Shepherdconferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESGcan appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of thedocument that are written in a formal language, such as XMLcode, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly inan automated checker?

Not applicable. SDP example fragment is valid by inspection.

(1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a DocumentAnnouncement Write-Up. Please provide such a DocumentAnnouncement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the"Action" announcements for approved documents. The approvalannouncement contains the following sections:

Technical SummaryInternational Telecommunication Union (ITU-T) Recommendation G.722.1is a wide-band audio codec. This document describes the payloadformat for including G.722.1 generated bit streams within an RTPpacket. The document also describes the syntax and semantics of theSDP parameters needed to support G.722.1 audio codec.

Working Group SummaryThe G722.1 codec can change bit rate in mid-stream. Dealingwith this successfully was an issue for discussion duringWGLC. The resolution was to require each bit rate to haveits own payload type.